HBOS Group Reorganisation Bill (By Order)
	 — 
	Read the Third time, and passed.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The Government's plans are based on targets to reduce the number of accidental deaths from fire in the home by 20 per cent. and incidents of arson by 10 per cent. by 2010. Fire prevention was made a statutory duty for all fire authorities, as part of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004. I am pleased to advise the House that last year's figures for deaths showed a 45-year low. The fire service is to be commended for the recent reductions and encouraged to continue making our communities safer, year on year.

Henry Bellingham: Does the Minister recall the Deputy Prime Minister saying that, when it comes to allocating Traveller sites and issuing enforcement proceedings against illegal Travellers, the views of local councils should prevail? Why does her Department often overrule local councils, particularly in the case of the Crays Hill site at Billericay? When it comes to a sensitive issues such as Traveller sites, surely the views of local people and local democracy should prevail.

Yvette Cooper: We would hope that local authorities would already be starting to work to identify appropriate sites. That is an important way of removing some of the pressures, tensions and the real difficulties that we see with unauthorised sites. We would hope that local authorities would do that through the planning process—the issue is partly about identifying private sites as well as publicly provided sites—that is under way at the moment. I am happy to give my hon. Friend further details of the planning timetables in his area.

John Prescott: No. The hon. Gentleman's basic criticism is of the Merseyside pathfinder scheme, but let me make it clear that the whole programme of £1.2 billion in payments for the nine pathfinder schemes up until 2008 will refurbish 30,000 houses, have a new build of 15,000 houses and lead to the demolition of only 10,000 houses, which is a small but necessary part of the programme. In Liverpool, 50 per cent. of the population have moved out of the area concerned so it is not surprising that an awful lot of low-quality houses are empty there.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the criticism, but the answer to that comes from the residents themselves. When they gave their response to an unfair article by Simon Jenkins, they said about their houses:
	"They are now unfit as homes for families who deserve better. The campaigners, conservationists and critics don't have to deal with 125-year-old properties that are damp, decaying and expensive to heat—let alone with collapsed Victorian sewerage systems, now overridden with rats."
	The people living there are pressing us to get on with the programme.

Phil Woolas: I can confirm that the National Community Fire Safety Centre will continue. I met officials yesterday about that very point. I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), the Minister with responsibility for fire services, who has promoted the work of the centre, most recently on the "See Hear" programme on national television. The centre is staffed by an official from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, but works in conjunction with fire and rescue services and local authorities throughout the country.

Michael Fabricant: I have some good news—[Interruption.] I have. The Staffordshire fire service not only provides poorer areas with free smoke alarms, it also provides an exchange service for electric blankets. The Minister will know that, quite often, it is electric blankets that cause house fires. Are those schemes being taken up by other fire services and, if not, why not?

Phil Woolas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the good news. I can confirm that other fire and rescue authorities are taking up those schemes. Our strategy, which is supported by fire authorities across the political spectrum, is to move more towards prevention. May I use this opportunity to give the House even more good news, which I know that hon. Members will welcome? Accidental fire deaths in the home nationally are down. There were 219 deaths in the 12 months to 30 June 2005, compared with 277 tragic deaths a year earlier—a fall of 21 per cent. That is part of a six-year downward trend. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question.

David Miliband: I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his Committee will look at the facts before publishing their report. Refurbishment and new build in the Liverpool pathfinder to which he refers represented 1,911 houses in 2005–06. The demolition that he says is happening all over the place represented 39 houses. I hope that he will stick to the facts, rather than the rhetoric.

Michael Clapham: I thank my hon. Friend for her answer and, in particular, pay tribute to the work of the Deputy Prime Minister in bringing forward the Coalfields Regeneration Trust. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is still much more to be done and a role for the Coalfields Regeneration Trust well into the future?

Tony Blair: First, I support the arrangement between the United States and India, which is a very different proposition from Iran. Secondly, I have said consistently that Iran is not Iraq and that nobody is talking about a military invasion. However, I must say to my right hon. Friend that when the President of Iran is talking about wiping Israel off the face of the earth and when young people are signing up to be suicide bombers directed at US, UK and Israeli targets with at least the tacit acceptance of and possibly at the instigation of the Iranian regime, this is not the time to send a message of weakness.

Chris Bryant: It must surely have worried every sane and sensible person that yesterday Hamas not only refused to condemn the attack in Tel Aviv but effectively condoned it. How can the Prime Minister see a way forward so that we can ensure that poverty is tackled in the Palestinian Authority and that civil society is built up, but make it clear that we do not support those who support terrorism?

Michael Jack: The World Health Organisation told us recently that, in Zimbabwe, female life expectancy is now the lowest in the world at 34. Inflation is running at 913 per cent, and someone can be arrested for selling tomatoes on a street corner. In the light of the Prime Minister's commitment to the Commission for Africa, can he explain why western diplomatic efforts appear to have been impotent to date in dealing with the human tragedy that is continuing to unfold in Zimbabwe?

Paul Farrelly: If he will make a statement on progress with the Fit for the Future plans for the new hospital in North Staffordshire.

David Cameron: I am delighted to associate myself and the Opposition with the Prime Minister's generous tribute to Her Majesty. It is entirely merited. The occasion of anyone's 80th birthday is a matter for rejoicing, but this landmark in the life of Queen Elizabeth, who has reigned over our country so wisely and for so long, is a genuine cause for national celebration.
	She has been our queen for 54 years. Through 1,000 years of British history, only Queen Victoria, George III, Henry III and, by a few months, Edward III have sat on the throne for a greater period. As the Prime Minister said, Her Majesty has lived in two centuries through a time of incredible transformation. She served in uniform in the second world war, presided over the dismantling of the empire and Britain's joining of the EU, and witnessed the end of the cold war and the beginning of the new millennium. She has been a rock of stability, calm and good sense in a period of the most turbulent change.
	I had my first meeting as Leader of the Opposition with Her Majesty a few weeks ago. As one tries to explain what one is up to, one is acutely conscious that she has heard it all before and seen it all before. Her first Prime Minister was Winston Churchill. Her first Leader of the Opposition was Clement Attlee. I am the 19th Leader of the Opposition the Queen has had to meet; I am sure that, like others, Her Majesty has no doubt noticed that the number has increased all too frequently in recent years. However, she was, as ever, far too polite to point that out.
	To me, the Queen personifies two vital principles. The first is national unity. Many things divide us, but the institution of our monarchy and the integrity with which the Queen has carried out her role over almost six decades bring Britain together. I remember celebrating the silver jubilee in the village where I grew up. As a newly elected Back Bencher, I participated in golden jubilee events across my constituency, as other Members did. The Queen means as much to people of my generation as to those in previous ones, as I know that she will in future.
	As head of the Commonwealth, Her Majesty presides over an organisation that includes more than a quarter of the earth's population. That that community of nations has endured and thrived through such a tumultuous period in our world's history is due in no small measure to the Queen herself. She is admired and held in affection by everyone, from the most senior dignitary to the youngest schoolchild.
	The second principle that the Queen embodies is public service. Throughout her reign she has displayed judgment, tolerance and absolute political neutrality. Her life has been one of selfless duty. From the moment she was born, she has lived in the public eye. I cannot think of a single occasion on which Her Majesty has done or said anything that would damage in any way the institution that she embodies. For all of us in public life, she has set the highest standards in every respect.
	In 1947, to mark her 21st birthday, the then Princess Elizabeth addressed the commonwealth in a radio broadcast from Cape Town. In it, she made a solemn act of dedication to her people. She said:
	"I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service."
	Today, almost 60 years later, the whole House, indeed the whole world, can agree on how magnificently that vow has been fulfilled.

Laurence Robertson: Perhaps, Sir Alan, you will allow me briefly to add my tributes to Her Majesty the Queen and to the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), who on 6 April reached a similarly great milestone.
	I, too, am puzzled by the Government's approach to anonymous registration—a point that was outlined eventually by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik). Once he had managed to find his notes, he made a good point in questioning why clause 10 of the Electoral Administration Bill will not apply to Northern Ireland. That is rather puzzling.
	I am a little concerned by the way in which legislation is being treated at the moment. I hope that you will not consider it out of order, Sir Alan, if I mention that yesterday we had to consider an important order upstairs at the same time as an important statement on Northern Ireland was being made in the Chamber. I raised the issue on a point of order in Committee yesterday, because it does not seem to be a good way of managing what can hardly be described as trivia. The measures that we are discussing are very important, and I ask the Government to consider my point when they introduce legislation and orders in one form or another.
	All of us in Committee yesterday questioned why the order was necessary when, at that very time, the Government were saying in the Chamber that they were looking to restore the Assembly. That seems a very odd way of going about business. I will not try your patience any further on that, Sir Alan, but I would like to put it on the record that we cannot give legislation the serious treatment that it deserves when hon. Members are expected to be in two places at the same time.
	I will not take much of the Committee's time on this issue other than to say that the official Opposition understand the need for anonymous registration particularly, but not exclusively, in Northern Ireland. Other Members have made points about how people in Great Britain might want to exercise the right to cast their votes but understandably for one reason or another do not feel safe about their names being on the register. That problem exists in Great Britain, but it exists particularly in Northern Ireland for reasons with which we are all unfortunately very familiar. We therefore support the retention of the clause.

Lady Hermon: Will the Minister address one issue that has not come out at all in the debate this afternoon? The subsequent clauses, which we are going to look at in a few minutes, propose an interval of 10 years, instead an annual canvass. Will the Minister assure us that when there is a registration of anonymity, there will have to be a very good reason for that person or persons remaining anonymous until the canvass comes round after a 10 year interval?

David Hanson: I hoped that I had dealt with that point earlier, but I will try to assist the hon. Gentleman's recollection. I said that Northern Ireland had a body of electoral law, especially relating to registration and electoral fraud, thatfor reasons of which the hon. Gentleman will be awareis different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom. That means that technical issues that are different from those that apply to the Electoral Administration Bill must be considered. I understand that the hon. Gentleman might have some worries about that. We are broadly trying to replicate in Northern Ireland the situation that exists in my constituency in north Wales, but we have to examine the detailed and technical way in which we can do that when the situation is intermeshed with existing legislation that under current legislation is not amendable.
	I hope that I have been able to allay hon. Members' fears and have shown that I recognise their points as fair. Given their fears about Orders in Council, I hope that my proposals on consultation will address their concerns. I ask the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) to withdraw the amendment.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister for his extensive response to my points. I am not entirely persuaded of the reasons why clause 10 of the Electoral Administration Bill is not being extended to Northern Ireland. We are seeing a repeat performance from the Government: when they introduce primary legislation that is supposed to cover the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland falls behind. Clause 27 of this Bill, which we will debate tomorrow, belatedly extends several provisions of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 to Northern Ireland.
	There is absolutely no reference in clause 10 of the Electoral Administration Bill, as amended in another place, to differences in the body of electoral law in Northern Ireland. Although the Minister has waxed lyrical about the differences in legislation that have been needed to combat electoral fraud in Northern Ireland, and referred to specific difficulties with adapting clause 10 of the Electoral Administration Bill, he has been unable to pinpoint any particular difficulties with simply extending clause 10 in total, or verbatim, to Northern Ireland.
	Having said that, I am glad that there is consensus among all parties in the House about the need for anonymous registration. Although there can be an edited register at the moment, no voters can have their names withdrawn from the full register in Northern Ireland. Although the Minister gave an assurance that the people of Northern Ireland will be treated with parity of esteem with those in rest of the United Kingdom, he contradicted himself by referring to the extraordinary body of electoral legislation in Northern Ireland. That legislation should not be an excuse for not treating anonymous registration in Northern Ireland on a par with that in Great Britain, and doing so in primary legislation.
	I accept that if I press the amendment to a Division, however, I will lose. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) made the point well that if we were, by good fortune, not to have the Government out in full force to vote against the amendment, we might fall between two stools and not have anonymous registration introduced in Northern Ireland. That would be a serious error to which I would not wish to put my name, so given the Minister's assurances, and my hope that he will reflect on the points that have been made, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Lady Hermon: I am delighted that the right hon. Member for North Antrim enjoys such good health and am sure that the sneeze indicates only that there is a little breeze in the Chamber at the moment.
	Clause 3, which is on the timing of the canvass, causes me considerable concern. I reflect on the happy time when I became a Member of the House in 2001. The first piece of primary legislation relating to Northern Ireland in that Session was the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. In March 2001not so long agothe Government presented to Parliament a command paper, Cm 5080, entitled Combating Electoral Fraud in Northern Ireland. On the first page, the Government spelled out their responsibility in light of the fact that there was perceivedit certainly existed, so it was not just perceived, but unacceptableelectoral malpractice in Northern Ireland. The Government spelt out their responsibility in paragraph 4 of the Command Paper:
	The responsibility of the Government is two-fold: to protect the democratic exercise of the franchise and to combat abuse at the poll . . . where the threat of fraud is reduced, the credibility of the poll will be enhanced, and . . . this should encourage more people to exercise their right to vote.
	We have abolished the annual canvass in clause 2, and clause 3 proposes that a canvass should be held every tenth year. That period can be modifieda subject to which I shall returnbut as the Government have gone to the trouble of publishing a Command Paper and the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, which only went on the statute book four years ago, they should take care to achieve the right balance between preventing or eradicating electoral fraudit is a serious crime to deprive someone of the franchiseand ensuring that people are not discouraged from voting by making it too difficult to register on an annual basis.
	The Government have got the balance wrong in clause 3, which extends the period between canvasses to 10 years. However, in exceptional circumstancesand this is what concerns me most in a close reading of clause 3a canvass under section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 2003 must be conducted in 2010
	unless the Secretary of State makes an order providing that the requirement in this paragraph does not apply
	and every tenth year following 2010. The Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland is independent of Government. He has a heavy burden of responsibility, and I pay tribute to the work that he undertakes with his team. Clause 3(2) states that he may make a recommendation in favour of a canvass in the interim
	for the purpose of meeting the relevant registration objectives,
	which can be summed up as combating electoral fraud or simply ensuring that the register is up to date. However, the Secretary of State can issue a diktatI do not welcome this trend and I do not look forward to the emergency legislation that will be published tomorrowso that, having considered the recommendation, he can notify
	the Chief Electoral Officer that he is satisfied that the public interest requires a canvass to be conducted for that purpose.
	Even if the chief electoral officer, who has ultimate responsibility for electoral law and the canvass in Northern Ireland, requests a canvass before 2010, the Secretary of State can maintain that that is not in the public interest. When would it not be in the public interest to act as recommended by the chief electoral officer?
	I may have misread clause 3, but it appears that the Secretary of State could, by his own hand, make an order to delay the canvass until as late as 2016. That is completely unacceptable, given the efforts in the 2002 Act, for which I am enormously grateful, to tackle robustly the serious problem of electoral fraud. I urge the Government not to allow electoral fraud to return to the system by delaying the canvass for such a long time. Amendment No. 27 proposes that the annual canvass should be held every fifth year, although some people believe that it should be held every fourth year.

Lembit �pik: There are two issues. The first was raised by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and the second is the length of time between canvasses. I very much agree with the hon. Lady that it is unnecessarily centralist and directive to give the Secretary of State the opportunity simply to cancel the 2010 canvass. I do not wish to repeat her arguments, but I look forward to hearing the Minister's justification for the inclusion of that provision. I counsel him to be careful, because there is an increasing tendency in Northern Ireland legislation to give more and more powers to the Secretary of State simply because we are debating a particular subject and someone says, Let's give the Secretary of State flexibility to make individual decisions. If one steps back from the body of legislation that we have passed in the past nine years, one can see that there has been a huge centralisation of power for the Secretary of State because the opportunity arose for someone to do so for his convenience. That is not a good reason to do it, and I want to hear what the Minister has to say by way of justification.
	The 10-year period between canvasses is also important. A few minutes ago, we passed clause 2, which means that we have abolished the annual canvass in Northern Ireland, and clause 3 replaces the annual canvass with a canvass that will take place every 10 years. Our amendment would shorten that period of time to every four years, while the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) would decrease it to every five yearsI think that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) also takes that view. We can argue about one year either way, but the consensual point is that 10 years is way too long.
	The Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 introduced individual registration in Northern Ireland, and we remember the pain that Northern Ireland experienced to get an accurate canvass. The good news is that those measures have been successfulthere are currently more than 1.1 million people on the register, which is an estimated 91 per cent. of the voting age population. That is a triumph of data gathering, and credit is due to the Government and to the people who were involved in generating that reliable information.
	We understand why the Government want to abolish the annual canvass, and we all agree with them, but we must ensure that the process that replaces it is not so onerous that it discourages people from registering and that it is not so infrequent that it utterly undermines all the work to obtain an accurate canvass. That is not only in the interests of individual voters, because it will also help to prevent electoral fraud. It is obvious that there will be an opportunity for things to start going wrong again, if there is an entire decade between the collection of data. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 propose that a canvass should be held every four years, and if a canvass were conducted in the year before an Assembly election was due to be held, then there would be confidence in the register.
	The Minister must answer three questions. First, why should there be such an incredibly long period of time, when all kinds of factors mean that the register will be highly inaccurate by the end of that period? Secondly, why are the Government not concerned that electoral fraud will creep in again as the register becomes inaccurate? Thirdly, human beings are human beings and may not keep up to date if they move house or their circumstances change, so why are the Government not concerned that people will become increasingly disenfranchised, as logic tells us that they will be, in a 10-year period? Ten years is a quarter of my life; it is one eighth of the life of the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley); and, although I do not know how old the Minister is, I suspect that it is about one fifth of his life. [Interruption.] Looking at the Minister's youthful features, it is clear that he has had an easy life.
	I ask the Minister to think again. I suspect that there is consensus among Northern Ireland parties that the period is too long, and I can see that SDLP Members agree. The only people who might benefit from the 10-year period are those who seek to find ways back into the fraud game rather than those who seek to have fair elections. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Lembit �pik: I recognise that the SDLP, the DUP and the Conservatives are all ganging up against my four-year proposal. Let me put on the record the rationale for it. In essence, I was suggesting that we have the canvass in the year before the elections for the Assembly, which will be up and running and before we know it. [Interruption.] Yes, I realise that I am now digging a grave for the four years. At least that would have the logic of tying it into a known electoral cycle

The First Deputy Chairman: I remind hon. Members that the amendments that we are discussing relate to the timing of the canvass. That is what we should be concentrating on.

The First Deputy Chairman: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, and I know that he has much experience in Standing Committees. In this instance, however, I feel that it is important that we keep the two matters separate. We will therefore discuss the timing now, and as the Minister indicated, deal with public interest in discussing the subsequent amendments.

Mark Durkan: The Minister has asked us to place some reliance on clause 3(1)(a). If we consider clause 3(3), however, we see that the Secretary of State's powers make it possible that such a canvass might not be conducted before 2015. The Bill asks us to consider that it might not just be a case of the Secretary of State letting it slip for a year. I accept that there might be a case for not proceeding in 2010, because were the 2010 electoral canvass to be done in the autumn, which is the traditional time, that would run close to the public information build-up to the 2011 census. At that stage even the devolved administrationif there is onemight seek some change.

Patrick Cormack: The Minister is making a valiant effort but failing. Can he not understand that the confidence of the people of the Province of Northern Ireland is fundamental to the success of this legislation? We all know very well that it is unlikely that there will be a Secretary of State from Northern Ireland in the foreseeable future. We do not complain about that. We all know very well that it is perfectly possible, certainly for the immediate future, that the Government will have a large majority. We have already said that the Order-in-Council procedure is wholly unsatisfactory, as it is determined upstairs by a relatively small number of Members without the opportunity for amendment, so there is a lack of confidence in the system. When we pass primary legislation, surely it is important to ensure the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland. Why can we not get rid of this qualification clause and fix on 2010?

Lembit �pik: The fact that this discussion has continued for nearly half an hour gives a good clue to the fact that there is something amiss. The Minister has given an example of circumstances in which financial expediency might cause the Secretary of State to overrule the guidance of the chief electoral officer, who, after all, must take account of what is reasonable and practicable. The Minister, like me, knows very well that canvass data becomes outdated very quickly, and 10 years would be a ludicrously long time not to update it for. May I suggest a way out of the problem? Before the Bill goes to the other place, may we have a chance to discuss and reflect on the issues, and try to establish a more consensual approach? It is obvious to me that the Minister is doing his best, but not succeeding in convincing a number of Members who feel that the Government have not quite got it right.

David Hanson: I am always grateful for the hon. Gentleman's help. I know that he has my best interests at heart, and that he is looking after me and supporting me fully. I am sure that even the hon. Member for Tewkesbury has my best interests, and those of the Government, at heart. However, we have made a judgment. We thought about the matter carefully, and we feel that the 10-year period is sufficient. We have taken account of the fact that the chief electoral officer may make the request. I admit that the Bill allows the Secretary of State to refuse that request, under a range of provisions with which we shall deal later, but I believe that the fact of the request being made would weigh heavily on the mind of a Secretary of State.
	I return to the original principle. The legitimacy of the electoral register is paramount to the democracy of the United Kingdom and of Northern Ireland, and it is therefore central to what the Government are supporting. I hope that those who tabled the amendments will not press them to a vote, but if they do, I will encourage my hon. Friends to vote against them. There is potential for further discussions later, if that is what hon. Members want.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
	No. 27, in clause 3, page 2, line 37, at end insert
	'(2A) When considering a recommendation from the Chief Electoral Officer under subsection (2)(a) above, the Secretary of State must have particular regard to prevention of electoral fraud with a presumption that prevention of electoral fraud is in the public interest.'.
	No. 17, in clause 3, page 3, line 12, at end insert
	'(5A) For the purposes of subsection (5) the public interest is the requirement to meet the relevant registration objectives as set out in section 4.'.

Patrick Cormack: A few years ago, there was a great deal of debate in the House about what were called Henry VIII clauses. This, in effect, is a Henry VIII clause, because it will give the Secretary of State total power to interpret two words that can have the broadest and most general of meanings in a variety of contextspublic interest. The Secretary of State will decide what those two words mean.
	As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) said a moment or two ago, we have had examples of the political interpretation of those words. Earlier this afternoon, we had a quite absurd example of a financial consideration, when the Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and said that the Government could decide that 1.7 millionthe price of modest London flatis too much to spend on counteracting fraud.

Patrick Cormack: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is modest where I live.
	We all know from the property columns of newspapers that 1.7 million does not buy an awful lot these days[Interruption.] That is absolutely true. One need look only at the rather frightening property columns in almost any newspaper to realise that in all parts of the country, including the Minister's constituency, many properties are selling for that amount. That illustration is certainly less fatuous than the Minister's when he said that 1.7 million might be too much to spend to avoid fraud.

Patrick Cormack: I agree completely. I have said many times during my time as Chairman of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs that we want Northern Ireland to be a normal part of the UK, in the same way that Wales, Scotland and England are. At the moment, it is manifestly not and what we are debating now is a further illustration of the problem, which perpetuates the position and is fundamentally wrong.
	If I have to accept these words about the public interest in the BillI would much rather they were taken out and wholly agree with the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hernon) in saying thatthey must be precise, specific and defined. My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) and the hon. Member for North Down have both attempted to provide definitions. I hope that neither of them will take it in bad part if I say that they are imperfect attempts to create the definitions, but at least they are genuine attempts to do so.
	The very least that the Minister should do this afternoon, if he cannot undertake to remove the entire provisionI agree absolutely with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said a few moments agois to affirm that the Government will take the problem away for further consideration and seek to table amendments in the other place to encapsulate the amendments of both the hon. Member for North Down and my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury. If he wants to satisfy us, he should take it even further and call in the spokesmen for all the major political parties in Northern Ireland, see them either individually or collectively, and properly discuss the business of the public interest to see what can be agreed. After all, the Government set great store on finding consensus at the moment and are embarking on a series of talks. If it is so important to do so, which I fully accept, in respect of the operation of devolution, it is of equal importance to embark on talks that will lead to a consensus in respect of legislation passed by the House.
	I hope that the Minister will give us a much more satisfactory reply than he gave us about half an hour ago at the end of the previous group of amendments. I hope that the House will not need to divide again, but if the Minister fails to give us a satisfactory reply I fear that it will probably have to do so.

David Hanson: I am in danger of repeating my arguments. I am simply saying to all right hon. and hon. Members that the electoral officer has the integrity of the register at heart. Under clause 4, he is responsible for maintaining the register and its electoral integrity and, as part of that responsibility he may wish to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State for an annual canvass. However, there may be circumstances in which the Secretary of State does not agree with that recommendation, and wishes to override it. In extremis, such decisions may be made on financial grounds, on grounds relating to the census itself and for a range of reasons. I accept that I am pleading with the House in future to trust the Secretary of State, whoever they are, but their reasons for such decisions will undoubtedly be made public. They will be contestable in the courts, and they will be open to judicial review and to question in the House, so there is a safeguard if the provision is used in extremis.

Laurence Robertson: We have had another prolonged debate on an interesting subject, and I should like to run through one or two points that have arisen.
	As other hon. Members have said, the previous consultations outside the House are not relevant. We are here to consider the Bill as legislators, and we are entitled to raise points that were not necessarily raised before.
	It is a recurring theme that Ministersnot this particular Minister, but the Governmentare becoming rather isolated on Northern Ireland business. Given that Sinn Fein Members do not take their seats in this House, the Labour party is frequently the only party putting forward the ideas that appear in the Bill. No other party from either side of the House, including the SDLP, is supporting the Government on any issue. Only yesterday, the Government were isolated when a Northern Ireland order was discussed upstairs. Perhaps the Minister should go away and reflect on a number of issues, including that one.
	I was a little concernedalthough perhaps it should not have surprised mewhen the Minister said that if the chief electoral officer's recommendation were to be overridden, he would have the option of going public. Naively, I had assumed that the recommendation would have been made public in the first place. I would be happy for the Minister to intervene on me to clarify that matter. Perhaps I have missed the point, but I had assumed that the recommendation would automatically have been made public. It alarms me that that might not be the case. This will make the incestuous relationship between the Secretary of State and the chief electoral officer, to which I referred earlier, even more dangerous than I had originally assumed. I shall need to reflect on that.

Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 298.

David Hanson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. He will know that there are a range of reasons why, following discussions with the parties, an early election may have been desirable on previous occasions. Again, I can speculate until the end of the sitting at 7 o'clock this evening about what those reasons might be. The point is that we included in the Bill the ability to hold an early election if one were needed because of the circumstances of political discussions on the attempt to restore the Assembly, which the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) wishes to happen as a matter of urgency. If an early election was needed as part of those discussions, we could have called one if the Bill was passed as drafted.
	Following my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's announcement on 6 April, it is clear that the provisions for an early election will not be required, because we have recalled the Assembly for 15 May and set it a deadline of establishing an Executive, if possible, by 24 November, or thereabouts. I forget the exact date, but from memory I think that it is 24 November. We have said that, if the Assembly is not restored by that date, there will be no election for the Assembly. So an early election is not necessary. The circumstances for an early election could have been myriad, and I will not speculate on what could have happened in discussions with the DUP, the UUP, the SDLP, or Sinn Fein, which is not present today.

David Hanson: The situation has changed dramatically. The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Irish Government, with the response of the Taoiseach on 6 April, have put a different political complexion on the way in which the Assembly could be restored. The Government's prime objective is to restore the Assembly; that is what we want to achieve. We want to get the Assembly back up and running so that individuals, some of whom are in the Chamber today, can undertake their rightful role of deciding policy on issues to do with housing, culture, sport, planning, agriculture and other matters. That is the objective of Government.
	We did have an objective of having discussions with political parties, with the potential through the Bill of calling an early election if that was the way to unlock the difficulties that may have been faced. We are now in a different position and, because we do not want an early election, this set of clauses needs to be deleted from the Bill.

Nigel Dodds: Could not people including Members of the House easily take the view that the Government are making it up as they go along? They published the Bill on 16 February and now the Minister is telling the House that, by 6 April, everything had changed so dramatically that these provisions are unnecessary and redundant? Is it not the case that, within a very short time, the Government changed gear and completely changed their policy? People in Northern Ireland take the view that the Government are simply making it up as they go along.

David Hanson: I respect the hon. Gentleman's viewpoint, but the Government are not making it up as they go along. They have the clear objective of restoring the Assembly so that he, if he is chosen by his party again, can do the job that I am currently doing on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland in running the Department for Social Development. My objective is to get rid of the power that I am exercising and to give it back to him. That is the clarity of the Government's position.
	We have looked at several methods of trying to get that position back, one of which was discussion with the political parties to try to ensure that we reached a conclusion on the restoration of the Assembly. Given that that does not appear to be workingthe discussions that we had initially showed that there were real obstacles to the political parties getting together to restore the Assembly through political dialoguewe have taken affirmative action through my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, with the support of the Irish Government and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to put definitive stakes in the ground on where we are with the restoration of devolution. I refer to 15 May, the end of November and a clear process of potential engagement to form an Executive in that window. That has changed the situation with regard to the Bill.
	Yes, there may well have been a U-turn and a change of policy, but the overriding objective of whatever track we took was to secure the hon. Gentleman in his place in the Assembly and to give him responsibility for issues that direct rule Ministers are currently responsible for. I would hope that he shares that objective.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN HERTFORDSHIRE

Rosie Winterton: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the trust will be made aware of this debate, but I hope that he, and the other Opposition Members present, will agree that it is right for the local NHS to get back on an even keel. The proposed changes are subject to consultation: although difficult decisions will have to be taken, I assure the House that every effort is being made to ensure that there is only minimum disruption to services and to jobs.
	As I have said, the work of the local NHS trust has been extremely impressive. These are difficult decisions, but I repeat that I have been assured that any disruption to services will be kept to a minimum, and that some of the savings will be reinvested in alternative provision.I understand how strongly some hon. Members feel about this matter, and hope that my remarks have helped to reassure them.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Six o'clock.